Warning! This post contains emails which according to EO will harm home educators..

Like an alcoholic who is able either to abstain completely or when once he touches a drop goes on a mad bender; I seem to be posting here once again. This must stop! One would think that I would by now realise that it is impossible to debate anything in a rational way with some of those on the main home education lists and I am slightly irritated with myself that I have even been trying.



Just to remind readers, my trouble on the EO list began when somebody posted a message complaining about attempts by local authorities to suppress debate of home education. She went on to say that censorship should be challenged in any form; a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. My response to this was a brief message which I shall share with you all in a minute. Before that, I must say that I am relieved that EO admit now that they have actually been blocking my messages. Some people were talking slyly of conspiracy theories, as though the whole business was my being paranoid! Why have my messages been moderated or censored? One of the moderators explains that it was because,



’ I am not, however, personally happy to allow goading, rudeness or debate which would appear to be designed to harm home educators.’



Rudeness! Harming other home educators! Well of course, this is fair enough. If I have been rude or harming other parents, of course I should be prevented. (I am tempted to ask how I am harming them? By exposing them to opinions which differ slightly from their own? Yes, I suppose that could be pretty harmful, but only if one were a sheep or bigot!) Anyway, here is the message which I sent. Readers may judge for themselves just how rude or harmful it was. It begins with a quotation from the post to which I was replying:

　

'Censorship can come in many forms but it is usually recognisable for what it is and should be challenged accordingly.'



Fascinating idea, as though local authorities and newspapers somehow have a monopoly on this unsavoury practice! Many forums and lists for home educators operate censorship quite shamelessly, blocking posts which do not agree with the views of the moderators. Others simply chuck off those who are too vociferous in what the list owners feel to be the wrong cause. Witness how Tania Berlow was banned from HE Forums last year.



I am opposed to censorship, but let us admit that it takes place among home educators as much as it does anywhere else.



Simon.’



Just how harmful could this have been to other home educators? I emailed the moderators when I was told that this had been blocked. Perhaps this was when I began to be rude. Here is what I said:



‘Dear Shoshanna,

I cannot help making one or two points in response to your email. You say, ‘My personal feeling is that the EO group is the wrong place to have this debate’. I find this curious. Yesterday a message was posted complaining about censorship and the stifling of open debate on the subject of home education. Among other things the poster talked of, ’ the reluctance by many LA's keep an open debate’ and also said, ’ Censorship can come in many forms but it is usually recognisable for what it is and should be challenged accordingly’



Here is somebody who evidently wishes to start a debate about censorship relating to home education. You did not block or remove this message and so I must assume that you feel that this EO group is actually the right place for such a debate. When I point out that censorship around home education does not only happen in local authorities and newspapers, but is also undertaken by some home educators’ groups themselves, you apparently decide that this is no longer a topic which should be discussed on the list.



The result of this is, as I have said, to slant debates and give a false impression. The people coming on here seeking support and advice will be allowed to read that local authorities operate censorship and that is a bad thing, but will not be allowed to learn that home education groups do precisely the same thing. Do you really find nothing bizarre about somebody starting a debate on the EO list about censorship and the first person to respond to this being censored himself? I am sure that if you have any sense of the ridiculous, you will grasp this point!



Simon.’



Nothing rude or harmful here either! That this is actually censorship is clear from the way that while not being allowed to read my actual messages, those on the EO list are being told that they are rude and harmful. This is untrue and suggests strongly that those saying such things are not acting in good faith. Believe me, this is not moderation at all but censorship. Refusing to let others read something and then telling them that this is because it would harm them to do so is one of the oldest justifications for censorship. It has never cut any ice with me.



I have also, by the way, recieved an email headed:



　Message not approved: Moderating question

From: catalonia13 Add to Contacts

To: simon



From this, I take it that the posts which I sent to BRAG containing statistics have actually been rejected, rather than just falling victim to a technical glitch.

Read More

Alison Sauer and Education Otherwise; a correction

Last week, Shena Deuchars of Education Otherwise was very keen to distance the organisation from Alison Sauer, after somebody commented here that she used to work for EO. Shena said, very definitely in response to this idea:

‘"But Alison Sauer did once hold a position within the EO organisation, until recently wasn't it?"

No, she did not. I have phoned her this afternoon to ask. I am assured that she has never been an LC, a trustee or a volunteer in any capacity.'

Now of course, I know perfectly well that Alison Sauer has in the past represented Education Otherwise at national level. I am sure that others also know this. Just look at this piece from The Scotsman:


http://news.scotsman.com/education/Home-educators-failing-children.2470084.jp



I love the dogmatic way that she paints home education in her own image!

‘If you are a professional teacher you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to home education. We don’t do any teaching. Our philosophy is self-directed learning’

Don’t you just adore that ‘we’ don’t do any teaching? 'Our' philosophy is self-directed learning. Is that official EO policy that she is expounding here? I wonder why Education Otherwise are so keen to disown her now?

Read More

Education Otherwise

Shena Deuchars and Heidi de Wet in Swindon continue to stamp their authority on Education Otherwise. They have recently revealed, which will come as little or no surprise to those familiar with the organisation, that two thirds of EO's expenditure has been going on an office in Sheffield. This is now to be closed, marking the complete triumph of the new trustees in Swindon over the old clique in Sheffield.

Many people have noticed in recent years that Education Otherwise, once noted for being a friendly organisation devoted to helping parents who have chosen to educate their own children, has turned into some sort of aggressive political group, very ready to savage its own volunteers and members and cast them aside if they asked too many questions. It had been noticed that this trend really began around 2007. That this has not been popular with members can perhaps be seen by the fact that membership numbers are down 60% on what they were in 2006. One would have expected the Badman review to drive up membership, but this did not happen. Since the bulk of Education Otherwise's money comes from subscriptions from its members, this means that the organisation is in serious financial difficulties; it is spending far more than it is earning. This is not of course a situation which can continue. It is thought that there will be an attempt to recruit volunteers and try not to have paid staff. Of course, there may well be other reasons for the fall in membership numbers; I look at one possible explanation below.

The question is, has Education otherwise reached the end of the line now? Sometimes, groups which were once very valued and useful, fade away and decline for no other reason than that their time is over. There is no doubt that EO was a tremendous help to parents in the past and that it once had a role to play, particularly when home education was a fringe activity of which few were aware. Now that it is a well known option for parents, perhaps organisations like this have less of a part to play. If one wished to find out about the legalities and practicalities of home education in the early 1990s, then Education otherwise was an invaluable resource. Now, with so much information freely available on the Internet, there is less reason to pay an annual subscription. There are various Intrent lists, such as EO's own list which is free to non-members, for those who wish to ask questions and solicit support.

I used to belong to EO myself, but in recent years simply could not see the point in maintaining my membership. I have an idea that many others feel the same way, which might account in part for the fall in membership. I think that this year will prove crucial for the organisation. The full extent of the financial crisis which has engulfed Education Otherwise is now dawning on the new trustees and I think that the next AGM should be interesting. The rumour circulating is that certain individuals in the north of England were running EO in such a way as to help their own positions, rather than for the ultimate benefit of the membership. Surprise has been expressed at some of the claims for 'expenses' which have come to light. No doubt we shall be hearing more about this sort of thing in the near future. It will also be interesting to see if any of the new trustees decide to pay themselves for the work which they are doing. Many people thought that this was a bit of a slippery slope when the practice began a few years ago.

Read More

Education Otherwise

About a month ago those running the Education Otherwise list, which is an Internet meeting place popular with home educating parents in Britain, announced that it would close down on December 17th. It is not necessary to be a member of Education Otherwise to belong to this list and a number of people were upset at the news. The announcement of this closure came shortly after the Annual General Meeting of Education otherwise, at which a number of trustees felt that they had to stand down. A new group took control, among them Shena Deuchars and Heidi de Wet. Until this AGM, Education Otherwise had been largely controlled by trustees in the north of England, notably Fiona Nicholson and Annette Taberner.

I rather assumed that closing down the EO list was part of a scorched earth policy by the old trustees, a way of stopping too many people knowing about any power struggles or problems between the different factions of the trustees. I said here that if the list continued past the December 17th deadline, it would indicate that the new faction of the trustees based in Swindon, where Shena Deuchars lives, would have triumphed over the Sheffield group, where Fiona Nicholson and Annette Taberner are based. Lo and behold, the list is still running and both Fiona and Annette have now resigned. This seems to be a conclusive victory for Swindon. This is particularly so because both Shena Deuchars's daughter and Heidi de Wet's husband have been appointed as trustees in Fiona and Annette's place. A glorious victory indeed for the Swindon mob!

Some though are wondering if this will prove to be a Pyrrhic Victory. In September, the accounts for 2009 were finally sent to the Charity Commission. They were horribly late. The Charity Commission are so busy these days chasing after independent schools in order to try and revoke their charitable status, that they don't always have time for their basic work. The accounts which were sent to them in September were not signed, either by the accountant or the trustees. Sure, Celia McDonagh's name is printed there as Secretary, but she has not signed and dated them. Were they approved by the trustees? If so when? In particular, were they approved by a quorate meeting of the trustees? The accountant has not countersigned them either, which is unusual. Anybody glancing through these accounts will find much to mull over, which is perhaps why Shena Deuchar seems keen to have another Annual General Meeting so soon after the last one. We are told that;

'information is coming to light about EO's financial status and legal compliance that suggests EO is in a difficult position at present.'

This sounds like code for, 'Shit, you wouldn't believe what's been going on over the last few years!' I shall be watching further developments eagerly. The sudden and unexpected resignation of both Fiona Nicholson and Annette Taberner might well tie in with the calling of another AGM so soon after the last one. There is widespread and gloomy speculation that there will be startling revelations at the next Annual general meeting such as might make it difficult for Education Otherwise to continue in its present form.

Read More

The new trustees at Education Otherwise

Following the Annual General Meeting of education Otherwise, a new set of trustees are in charge. I thought that it might be helpful to provide a little information about them, in order that people could be able to have some idea of the direction which the charity might take in the future.

Fiona Nicholson is still in. She was one of the group who more or less seized control of Education Otherwise three years ago. Fiona lives in Sheffield with her seventeen year-old autonomously educated son, who has never been to school or college. It will be remembered that she provided much innocent amusement during the select committee hearing last October, when she found herself quite unable to decide whether or not she was in favour of the compulsory registration of home educated children. Still, actions speak louder than words and it was observed that Fiona never felt any inclination to notify her own local authority of her intention to home educate her son, only taking this step when the child's father was threatening to do it for her. Annette Taberner, another of the old trustees who has not resigned, also lives in Sheffield and with Fiona is part of the Northern mafia who have exercised such influence on EO for years. For a while, it was thought that Fiona's best friend in Education Otherwise was Ann Newstead, but they do not seem to be as chummy as once they were. This is rumoured to be because Fiona did not share Ann's gung-ho approach to chucking EOs money around on expensive litigation and various other profligate activities which are not really in keeping with the charity's aims. Both Ann Newstead and her husband Alexander Roarke are no longer trustees. Fiona is a great fan of the Molesworth and William books, which must surely show that she is fundamentally sound.

Shena Deuchars is a copy editor who lives in Swindon. Her daughter managed to get a place at Exeter University to study law without having any GCSEs or A levels. The whole thing was achieved by Open University courses, which is encouraging for others. Shena is a very honest and decent person who cannot fail to have a wholesome effect upon EO.

Celia McDonagh remains as a trustee. This surprised some people, who thought that she would resign along with Jo Berry. She was very involved with the Jo Berry business, allegedly passing on emails to her about internal matters at Education Otherwise. This led to threats of libel action and her resignation was demanded. She was forced out at an Extraordinary General meeting in 2006, but returned a short time later.

Some people expected that the trustees who had presided over what looked like the decline and fall of Education Otherwise would stand down en masse, but this has not happened. In fact after the AGM on Saturday, seven of the existing trustees are still around. It remains to be seen whether the reforming zeal of people like Shena Deuchars and Heidi de Wet will be able to change the organisation and bring it back to life.

There has been some talk about the accounts not being approved at the AGM, but this does not really signify. After all, they have already gone to the Charity Commission. There were discrepancies between the amounts listed in the 2008 and 2009 accounts, but this sort of thing does happen sometimes. It will be recalled that EO sacked their last auditor because they were not satisfied with how the financial position was presented in the accounts. The Charity Commission will put the accounts up on their website in due course; they have had them since September.

Read More

More about Education Otherwise

Somebody yesterday wanted to know a little more about the background to Education Otherwise's current problems. I thought that I would post a brief outline, particularly as some people elsewhere seem to be getting a little worked up.

In early 2007, there was something of an upheaval among the trustees of Education Otherwise. On February 10th that year, eleven trustees resigned and eight new ones were appointed in their place. One of these new trustees was a woman called Joanna Cynthia Berry. Up until that time, Education Otherwise had always filed their accounts and annual return promptly with the Charity Commission. Since that time, they never have done so. The latest accounts, for the year ended June 30th 2009, were finally filed on September 17th this year. This was very late. The annual return for that year has still not been filed and the Charity Commission are getting quite tetchy about this. The annual return is simply a document detailing any changes in trustees over the last year. It can be done online with a few clicks of the mouse and the only reason that I can see for the failure to submit it is that EO are not sure who to put down as currently being trustees. They have a very high turnover of trustees due to internal wrangles and some people resign almost as soon as they have been appointed. Some, like Fiona Nicholson, are in and out like Jack-in-the-boxes. She was appointed as a trustee on February 15th 2008, resigned three weeks later on March 6th and less than a week later was appointed again! Companies House have also had to put the frighteners on EO in order to get the information which is legally required to be supplied to them.

There was a good deal of controversy about one of the trustees appointed in 2007, Jo Berry who was mentioned above. There was an unfortunate incident in her domestic life and the suggestion was made that she was perhaps not the best person to assume responsibility for child protection for the charity. Certainly, the fact that she was a trustee caused raised eyebrows in some local authorities. At one point, there was a threat of legal action against former members of Education Otherwise for things which were said concerning her. Quite a few people thought that her continued presence as a trustee made Education Otherwise look as though it had a cavalier attitude towards child protection. Another suggestion being made was that the new trustees were behaving in a vindictive fashion and forcing out of the organisation people who had served it loyally for years.

At the end of 2008, two members of Education Otherwise requested a list of members. This was part of another bout on infighting in the organisation. Because EO is a limited company as well as being a charity, they were legally obliged to provide this information, but refused to do so. Instead, they became embroiled in a court action to prevent the release of the names of the Signed Up Members of the company. This row continued after Graham Badman had started his review of elective home education and the whole business of safeguarding and the possible abuse of home educated children was a major issue. Education Otherwise then decided that one of the reasons that they would not release the list of members names was that many parents were home educating because of child abuse. They said, in a submission to the court that they would not allow anybody to see the list of members because:

' one reason for this is that individuals who home educate their children comprise a significant proportion of individuals who were abused as children, this often being the motivating factor in that individual deciding to home educate their child.'

It was, to say the least of it, unfortunate that this became known just as Badman was asking about child abuse among home educators! Some people thought that this, combined with the controversy over Jo Berry, gave an odd and undesirable impression of EO to the outside world.

The latest attempt to hold an Annual General Meeting and get the accounts approved was held last Saturday, November 6th. It was a bit of a flop, because few trustees turned up. Another AGM is to be attempted this Saturday in Oxford. Supposedly, Jo Berry is going to stand down as a trustee at this meeting. People on some lists have made much of the fact that the accounts have been very late for the third year running and that the annual return has yet to be made to the Charity Commission. It is now about seven months late. I do not personally attach much importance to this. Many charities are slack about filing their annual returns. There seems to be a suspicion that the court case cost a lot more than has been thought and that this is why the accounts took so long to prepare. A figure running into tens of thousands of pounds for lawyers fees has been mentioned, but until the accounts can be examined, this is only rumour.

There are two main reasons why charities have difficulty getting their accounts done on time. these are (a.) useless and incompetent trustees and (b.) some sort of funny business going on. My own view is that the probable explanation lies in a bunch of people managing to seize control of EO in 2007/2008 and not altogether realising just what was entailed in running the company. I believe that inefficiency lies at the heart of the matter rather than crookedness.

Read More

Education Otherwise

Most readers will probably be aware by now that the Annual General Meeting of Education Otherwise was held in Oxford on Saturday. Because not enough people turned up, it was adjourned. Only four of the thirteen trustees of the charity turned up, which is very odd. I don't intend to go into all the ins and outs of the troubles which have beset the organisation over the last few years, but the bottom line is that many think that EO has reached the end of the line and that when the AGM is reconvened this coming Saturday, it is possible that it might simply mean that it will be to wind up the charity. The question is, would this matter to most home educators? Whom would it affect?

Like many home educating parents, I joined Education Otherwise at one stage. And, again like so many others, I allowed my subscription to lapse after a year. I couldn't see what I was getting from the thing, nor how my money was being used to help other home educators. There are currently four or five thousand members and it would be interesting to know how many of these have only joined for a year or so. I think that this is probably very common and that there is a relatively small core membership which belongs to EO for years on end. Many local authorities push Education Otherwise to parents who de-register their kids from school and it appears on the websites of an awful lot of councils. For many people outside the world of home education too, Education Otherwise is synonymous with home education in this country. The claim is frequently made that EO have succeeded in making home education an acceptable alternative to schooling for British children and that without their efforts over the years, parents in this country would face a much harder time from their local authorities. Is this true?

Section 36 of the 1944 education Act laid down that parents must cause their children to receive a suitable education, 'either by regular attendance at school or otherwise'. This was included as a nod to those, like the Royal family, who traditionally engaged governesses and tutors for their children rather than sending them to school. Without this section, the prospect would have been raised of the Truancy Officer banging on the door of Buckingham Palace! It was to be ten years or so before an 'ordinary' parent thought to take advantage of this loophole and not send her children to school. In 1952, Joy baker took this step and spent the next nine years fighting against Norfolk County Council to secure this right. During the seventies and eighties there were other key cases which secured the ground for other parents who wished to educate their children at home and defined what is meant by a 'suitable' and 'efficient' education; Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson (1981) QB (DC) 729/81, Phillips v Brown (1980) Divisional Court June 20th and of course R v Secretary of State for education, ex Parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass School Trust.

Now while it is true that one of these cases, Harrison & Harrison v Stevenson, involved Iris Harrison, who was a founder member of Education Otherwise in 1977, she and her husband fought and won the case pretty well single-handedly. In other words, all the key cases of precedent which have established the legality of home education have had nothing at all to do with Education Otherwise or any other organisation. Throughout the seventies and eighties, parents were starting to home educate their children and fought to ensure that local authorities did not prevent them from doing so. This would have happened with or without the existence of Education Otherwise.

Still, there must be other good things about EO. They provide a lot of information to parents on their website and through newsletters, don't they? This of course is quite true, but in the modern world almost completely irrelevant. In the eighties, when key court cases were being heard such as that of the Harrisons, it was necessary to spread the news of judgements like the one at Worcester by means of letters and telephone calls. Unless you belonged to Education Otherwise, you might simply not have heard about Iris Harrison's triumph at the Crown Court; it was not widely reported. Similarly, the legal position, relevant parts of the 1944 Education Act and so on, were not freely available. A parent living in a remote rural area might have needed to travel to London to track down such documents and pay for photo-copies. These days, the case is altogether different.

The Internet alone has probably made groups like Education Otherwise unnecessary. All the information one could possibly require on anything at all to do with home education, anywhere in the world, is freely available at the click of a mouse. One can join groups and lists, chat on forums, arrange to meet other parents; it really is not necessary to join formally any organisation at all. There are plenty of people who are happy to provide information and advice without paying an annual subscription.

In short, it seems to me that the world has moved on somewhat since 1977 when Education Otherwise was founded. They may once have made a contribution to the struggle of parents to establish their legal right to educate their children at home, but this would probably have happened anyway, even if Education Otherwise never existed. It is always sad when an old newspaper, comic, chain of shops and so on folds up. Still, the sadness does not usually last long and I suspect that in ten years time Education Otherwise will be fondly remembered as an historical curiosity rather than being an active and vibrant part of the twenty first century home educating community.

Read More

Breeding hobgoblins

A few weeks ago a parent emailed me to say how much she enjoyed this blog. She said that she had unsubscribed from the HE-UK list because she had, after reading the messages there, started laying in bed at night worrying that her children were going to be taken into care! I can see her point. Reading some of the HE Internet lists and blogs, one does tend to come across a lot of scary stuff. It's enough to give anybody insomnia. Stories of parents having their children taken from them because they are home educating, social services interfering with families, oppressive actions by local authorities, the threat of having children removed for interrogation if this piece of legislation or that is passed, a 'war' on home education; the list of scare stories is endless. I have over the last year or two been put in mind many times of what the American journalist H. L. Mencken said:

'the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous of being led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.'

This is essentially what has been happening with home educating parents; a small group of people have been whipping up fears and threatening them with all sorts of dangers; dangers from which they alone can rescue them. Consider for a moment the Badman review of elective home education. I have no idea at all how the ordinary home educator might have reacted to the news that somebody was to look at the practice of home education and check if anything needed to change. We will never know, because before anybody had a chance to think about the thing, national home education groups told them what they should be thinking and feeling. On January 19th, 2009, the announcement was made that the review was to take place. That very same day, the BBC reported this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7838783.stm


'Home educators are angry'. Well of course, it was a little early to say, a few hours after the review had been launched, how the eighty thousand or so parents of home educated children in this country felt about it. What this headline really means is not that any parents actually are angry, but rather that a few people in a national organisation think that they should be angry. This is an attempt to shape and mould the opinion of home educating parents; to put the wind up them before they even have a chance to think about what is happening. It was pretty successful as well, as subsequent events showed.

Mind you, many parents seem only to happy to believe any sort of nonsense that anybody says about home education and the supposed threats to its existence. It looks to me as though a lot of them enjoy being scared about various nonexistent crises which menace their very way of life. In other words, people running Education Otherwise, Home Education UK and so on are certainly working hard to alarm parents, but they find no shortage of dupes and credulous fools willing to gape open mouthed at the ridiculous stories they peddle. Perhaps its like going to the cinema to watch a horror film; maybe these people enjoy being scared!

Let us look at another example of how the leaders of national HE groups and ordinary parents get together to enjoy a good scare. On September 19th this year one of the HE Internet lists to which I belong carried a story that the Metropolitan Police were treating home education and co-sleeping as risk factors in child abuse. It took me a day or two to track down the truth, talking to various people in the Met and speaking to the author of the piece which was causing concern. This was the Child Risk Assessment Matrix or CRAM for short. When I posted the results of my conversations, people expressed irritation. What did it have to do with me? Why was I interfering? It was as though they wanted to believe this foolishness and were annoyed that somebody had allayed their fears. Enter stage left Mike Fortune-Wood, the home educating parents' fearless champion. He wasn't convinced and was determined to get to the bottom of the matter! Talking to people indeed, I must be a gullible fool! He had made a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police and my word, he meant to find out the truth about this. Cheers of approval and relief that he was on the case. This was on September 20th. Freedom of Information requests must be complied with within twenty days and yet here we are, forty five days later and no news. My suspicion is that people like Mike Fortune-Wood and various others at Education Otherwise don't really want to reassure people about these imaginary threats. They are pleased, because it makes them indispensable. A similar scenario developed with the idea of weighing and measuring home educated children in Wales and Oldham. There is a panic, I find out what is going on, people are reluctant to be reassured and others claim to be making FoI requests. Then silence. The conclusion I draw is that many people want to be alarmed and see me as being a bit of a spoilsport for throwing cold water on their fantasies. What is interesting is that I often find that people from EO and other groups have actually been there before me and spoken to the same people. However, when they learn that there is nothing to worry about, they keep the news to themselves. Why would they do that, I wonder?

There are many motives for becoming well known as a champion of home educators. The obvious one is financial, hence the use of the term 'rent seekers', which we are seeing applied to those who are talking about home education to Graham Stuart. I do not myself believe that this is the primary reason for these people trying to maintain a sense of anxiety among home educators. I think it far more likely that it is the desire to feel important and have a chance of busy-bodying around; the same motive which caused people to descend upon Birmingham last month. I am irresistibly reminded of Rabbit in the Winnie the Pooh books. It will be remembered that he liked to boss people about and be the one organising things. Here is an extract from one of the books and it seems to me to describe perfectly how people like Ian Dowty, Fiona Nicholson and Mike Fortune-Wood probably feel. Just substitute mentally one of the above names for Rabbit when you read it and you will see what I mean:

'It was going to be one of Rabbit's busy days. As soon as he woke up he felt important, as if everything depended on him. It was just the day for organising something, or for Writing a Notice Signed Rabbit...'

Read More

The need for democratic legitimacy for representatives of home educators

Every single person in this country who claims to speak on behalf of home educating parents is doing so because they have appointed themselves to this role. This applies to me, Mike Fortune-Wood, Education Otherwise, Alison Sauer; every single one of us. Not one of us has any democratic legitimacy whatsoever. In fact, looked at from that point of view, the only person during the debate about home education last year who had any claim to being appointed in a democratic fashion was Ed Balls. This is a sobering but inescapable conclusion.

What can we do about this problem? For problem it most certainly is. While we are in a situation where nobody has been chosen democratically, the field is open for anybody to claim that he or she represents the interests of home educators. Politicians cannot deal with every one of the estimated eighty thousand or so parents of home educated children in this country. They have to deal with one or two people. Unfortunately, the people who put themselves forward in this way do not really represent anybody except themselves and their own interests. They may have manoeuvred themselves into this position simply because they are articulate, plausible and know how to approach MPs. They are not accountable. This is far from satisfactory. It is a recipe for behind the scenes deals which will then be presented to other home educating parents as a fait accompli.

A related problem is that home educating parents are powerless to affect all the various things supposedly being done on their behalf or for their benefit. They were powerless to prevent Graham Badman's recommendations and they were also powerless to prevent people like me or Fiona Nicholson putting ourselves forward and shooting our mouths off at the select committee. They are currently powerless to know, or have any influence upon, what is being done on their behalf by others who are now negotiating with MPs. Until all home educating parents have a chance to choose representatives who speak on their behalf, the anger and frustration which many in that community feel is likely to remain.

The only way around this which I can see would be if every single home educator were known to local authorities. If that were to be the case then an outside body, somebody like the Electoral reform Society, could supervise the distribution of nominations and ballots so that each local area could elect two or three people who would genuinely speak for home educating parents in that part of the country. Doing it locally like this would prevent a national organisation like Education Otherwise from dominating the process. If representatives could be democratically elected in this way, then the way would be open to forming local councils consisting of home educators, local authority officers and perhaps independent members of the wider community who could supervise anything to do with home education in each local authority area. Having independent members on such a council would prevent either the local authority or home educators from having too much control. Only those who were currently home educating their children would be eligable to stand for this council or vote. This would also remove a number of self appointed experts from any position of influence.

It will not have escaped notice that a scheme of this sort would require the compulsory registration of home educators and I am aware that many are not in favour of this. The advantage of such local councils would be that the local authority would become accountable in a way that they are not presently. Democratically elected home educators would be able to speak on behalf of other home educating parents and they would have real power in the shaping of policy and practice in their area. This would introduce a new era of openness in the way that local authorities operate with regard to home education. There are frequent complaints about so-called ultras vires practices. If every aspect of the local authority's approach to home education had been hammered out in the presence of elected and accountable members of the home educating community, this would not be possible. Every detail would be worked on openly by both local authority officers and home educating parents together. The independent members would ensure that objective witnesses were present at all discussions between the two sides.

This scheme would only work if every home educator was involved; if every home educating parent had the chance to stand for office and vote. Hence the need for compulsory registration. Home educating parents with a grievance about their local authority's actions would be able to take it to a democratic representative who could raise the matter at the next meeting of the Home Education Council. It would work just as local councillors now work on behalf of people in their ward.

Different areas have very different concerns about home education. For example, a parent in the Western Isles might have a very different set of problems about home education than a mother in a large metropolitan district. For this reason, a national council or anything run by a national organisation would not really work. The essence of this scheme is that it would be operated by local home educators for local home educators. The sticking point would be the need for compulsory registration, but I fancy that that particular point is already under active discussion with MPs. I would be surprised if this does not appear on the scene shortly whatever else happens. Until every single home educating parent has a say, via democratically elected and accountable representatives with equal power to the officers of the local authority, there will continue to be conflict over the whole question of home education.

Read More

Graham Stuart and his helpers

I never quite took to Graham Stuart. He always struck me as a vain opportunist who found in home education an obscure topic about which he could swiftly become Parliament's expert. After the select committee hearing, when the various teenage offspring of members of Education Otherwise approached him, he gave the impression that he saw himself as some matinee idol being mobbed by his fans. One could imagine his saying, 'Oh shucks, you guys! You want to talk to me and ask for my help? Why, I'm just a regular guy, but I'll surely help is I can'. He put me in mind of a Tory version of Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Something which I noticed at the select committee was that although I turned up alone, as did Jane Lowe, Carole Rutherford and Zena Hodges, Education Otherwise arrived mob-handed, accompanied by a contingent of amiable but persistent teenagers. These were the same bunch of youngsters for whom Ann Newstead's husband put together a website which for a while posed as the voice of home educated youth, being allegedly completely separate from Education Otherwise. It will be remembered that during the Badman enquiry the idea of adopting something like the Tasmanian system for home education was briefly floated. I don't know who suggested this to Badman. Paula Rothermel was wandering the world following a series of personal misfortunes and she fetched up in Tasmania for a while. Perhaps she gave him the idea. But at any rate, nobody showed any interest in this except of course for Education Otherwise. For the 'Tasmanian Model' to have been a real proposition, the Department for Children, Schools and Families would have needed a partner from the home educating community. Since for many who are not actually home educators, Education Otherwise is home education in this country, they were seen as the logical candidates. After all, anybody wanting to know about home education always goes to them first, whether it is a newspaper reporter or a government enquiry.

During the select committee hearing itself, one of the members wanted to know if home educators would be in favour of a simple registration scheme, whereby the location and educational setting of every child in the country would be known to their local authority. I was of course in favour; Zena Hodges, Carole Rutherford and Jane Lowe were not. What was Education Otherwise's position on this point? We will never know, which struck me then as very strange. The Chair tried sympathetically to extract an opinion from Fiona Nicholson, who was representing Education otherwise, but to no avail. In the end, he said in exasperation, 'Okay, that's a don't know'. I wonder if anybody else finds it odd that after all the preparation, the moment that we have all been waiting for, for home educators to have a say about Badman's proposals, and Education Otherwise don't even know if they are against one of the key points?

Graham Stuart kept in touch with Education Otherwise after the select committee hearing and formed quite a good relationship with various individual members. Even after the defeat of Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill, he still seemed to have time for them; there was no question of just shaking hands and a parting of the ways. I was therefore curious to learn of the rumour going the rounds that he has been working with certain home educators to draw up new guidelines for home education in England. Now since Education Otherwise were quite keen on the Tasmanian idea and bearing in mind that they did not know whether or not they were in favour of compulsory registration, some people are convinced that it is they who have been working with Graham Stuart. What is curious is that Graham Stuart has already claimed that things cannot remain as they are with regard to home education. As Chair of the Children, Schools and Families select committee, we should take note of what he says on this subject.

I freely admit that all this is based upon nothing more than rumour and speculation, but nevertheless it seems to me that something is in the wind and that the chances are that Education Otherwise has a hand in it. The problem would be of course that something of this sort which might affect thousands of home educators should not be undertaken in a hole and corner fashion, but out in the open. Graham Stuart has said that he is not in favour of monitoring and inspection, but I note with interest that he has carefully avoided mentioning compulsory registration. Since Education Otherwise also have an ambivalent attitude towards this, one wonders what might be hatched up if they are indeed working with him.

For my own part, I am of course quite agreeable to the idea of registration. It is however a controversial idea for some home educators and I feel that any such moves should always take place in the public eye and not as a result of meetings conducted on the quiet. For this reason, I would like to know a little more about what Graham Stuart is up to. It would be unfortunate if some new scheme were produced and included in the forthcoming White Paper on education. Anything of this sort needs to be thrashed out openly among all interested parties and not given some dubious legitimacy on the grounds that it has Education Otherwise's seal of approval.

Of course, Michael Gove might feel a bit silly about introducing an actual new law about home education so soon after the CSF Bill debacle. It is more likely that what is happening is that statutory guidelines are being drafted which would tell local authorities how to interpret the current law. According to one cagy source, somebody who does not even live in this country is involved in all this. Could this be a coded reference to Paula Rothermel in Switzerland?

Read More